The manufactured Republican outrage over the attack of our consulate in Benghazi is not only disingenuous but morally reprehensible

As I mentioned yesterday, the Republicans, in the wake of last week’s crushing defeat at the polls, are desperately looking for something to cling to. They’re looking for an opportunity to delay introspection, come across to the American people once again as forceful, and, most importantly, weaken the President as he attempts to make the case that wealthy Americans need to give up the irresponsible tax cuts that were given to them by Bush. And, the only thing they have to work with, it would seem, is the consulate attack in Benghazi, Libya, in which four Americans died. It’s not an easy task, but they’re putting all of their resources behind it, in hopes of turning it into a full-fledged scandal. Their argument thus far, as I understand it, is three-fold. First, they believe that we were attacked because our President projects weakness. Second, they claim that Obama wasn’t initially truthful with us concerning what happened. He was reluctant, Republicans say, to call it an act of terrorism, suggesting initially that the uprising developed organically, in response to a film which portrayed Mohammed as a homosexual child molester. And, third, they say that the Obama administration was warned that an attack on this consulate was imminent, and yet they chose to do nothing.

Based on the evidence, however, I think it’s safe to say that this is nothing more than a disgraceful attempt to capitalize on tragedy.

Let’s start with the fact that, contrary to what the Republicans in Congress would have you believe, American embassies and consulates are attacked quite frequently. During the Bush administration, for instance, seven American embassies were attacked. These attacks took place in Saudi Arabia (2004), Uzbekistan (2004), and Athens (2007), among other places. The bloodiest attacks took place in Karachi, Pakistan, where ten people were killed and fifty-one were injured in 2002, and in Yemen, where ten people lost their lives in 2008. To my knowledge, none of the people now calling for a formal investigation into what happened in Benghazi so much raised a single question about Bush’s role relative to embassy security in the wake of any of these attacks.

To be honest, I can’t even recall the Republicans being this aggressive in response to the 9/11 attacks on our country, in which 2,996 individuals were murdered. And, in that case, we actually had solid evidence demonstrating that the President had disregarded warnings of an imminent attack on American soil. I mean, among other things, the man was actually handed a national security briefing document by a CIA official on August 6, 2001 entitled Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US, and yet, by all accounts, did nothing. But, yet it’s the Benghazi attack that has Republicans talking about impeachment. I can’t be the only one that finds that a little odd, right?

If any of you doubt what this is really about, I’d encourage you to look into the actions of Senator John McCain this morning. After days of demanding that a special select committee be formed to investigate what happened in Bengazi, and making the case that it’s critically important that we understand exactly what happened, John McCain chose to skip a closed-door briefing about the deadly Benghazi attack this morning, opting instead to go on television, demanding immediate answers. And, when the irony of this was pointed out to him, he wasn’t happy. The following comes from CNN.

…”I have no comment about my schedule and I’m not going to comment on how I spend my time to the media,” McCain said.

Asked why he wouldn’t comment, McCain grew agitated: “Because I have the right as a senator to have no comment and who the hell are you to tell me I can or not?”

When CNN noted that McCain had missed a key meeting on a subject the senator has been intensely upset about, McCain said, “I’m upset that you keep badgering me.”…

Oh, and then there was this absolutely bewildering exchange between CNN anchor Soledad O’Brien and Congressman Joe Heck of Nevada, which took place this morning. O’Brien, as you’ll see, had to ask Heck three times to explain why he and his fellow conservatives plan to fight U-N Ambassador Susan Rice’s expected nomination as Secretary of State, on the grounds that she had incomplete knowledge of the events which transpired in Benghazi upon first addressing reporters after the siege of the embassy, when many of these same Republicans supported the nomination of Condoleeza Rice as Secretary of State during the Bush administration, even though she’d shared false information concerning the presence of WMDs in Iraq.

And, as long as we’re on the subject, here’s a little more on McCain, who was one of those Republicans that supported Condoleezza Rice, but now says that Susan Rice is unqualified for having inaccurately attributed the Libyan attacks to an offensive portrayal of Mohammed. Here’s a clip from Think Progress.

President Obama has yet to nominate anyone to succeed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, but Republicans are already lining up in opposition to potential replacement U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, citing her complicity in the administration’s alleged failures in responding to the attacks in Benghazi, Libya.

On Wednesday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) promised to filibuster Rice’s nomination and “do whatever to block the nomination that is within our power.” “She’s not qualified,” McCain explained, arguing that she misled the public by initially attributing the September 11 Benghazi attack to protests over an anti-Islam video. He claimed that at a minimum, Rice is guilty of “not being very bright, because it was obvious that this was not a ‘flash mob’ and there was additional information by the time she went on every news show…in America.”

But interestingly, McCain took a far different approach to another Rice in 2005. When President George W. Bush nominated National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice to the post, McCain defended the nomination, despite Rice’s central role in spreading the false intelligence that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction. The Democrats held hours of hearing and ultimately confirmed Rice, but not before McCain accused the opposition of using politics to delay her confirmation and challenging her “integrity”…

Seven years later, there is no evidence that Susan Rice mislead the public, yet McCain is leading the charge to oppose her. Rice was “speaking from a set of talking points provided by the U.S. intelligence community, which was also provided to Congress. The video has also been cited by those on the ground as being an impetus for the attack in recent weeks, challenging the Republican narrative.”…

But this isn’t anything new. The Republicans, who apparently have no shame whatsoever, have been attempting to politicize the deaths of these four Americans since the night of the attack, when Romney violated his pledge not to make partisan comments on the anniversary of 9/11, called a press conference, and proceeded to lie to the American people, saying that “the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.” It wasn’t true then, and it wasn’t true several weeks later, when, during the second presidential debate, Romney went back to the issue, claiming falsely that Obama had failed to call the attack an act of terrorism, only to be fact-checked in real time. And it’s certainly not true now… This was a horrific event, and we should mourn the loss of the four American men who died there that night, while serving their country, not use their deaths to further our own political agendas. And, with that, I’ll leave you with these words from Barbara Doherty, the mother of US Navy Seal Glen Doherty, who was among those that died at the consulate in Benghazi.

“(Romney) shouldn’t make my son’s death part of his political agenda. It’s wrong to use these brave young men, who wanted freedom for all, to degrade Obama.”

Speaking of hypocrisy, let’s not forget all of the 241 U.S. marines were killed in the Beirut barracks bombing on October 23rd 1983. I’ll have to check, but I don’t recall McCain, or anyone else, calling for Reagan’s impeachment.

When the CIA’s acting director, Michael Morell, testifies Thursday before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, he is expected to say that the agency never requested Europe-based special operations teams, specialized Marine platoons, or armed drones on the night of the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi, Libya, according to a senior U.S. intelligence official.

The disclosure may put an end to one line of inquiry into the Benghazi affair about why reinforcements from the region were not sent on the night of the attack. “Assistance from the U.S. military was critical, and we got what we requested,” the senior U.S. intelligence official said.

Republicans in a House Foreign Affairs hearing ratcheted up their accusations to full scale crazy, likening what the Obama administration has done on Benghazi to being worse than Watergate and repeatedly accusing him of lying.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) bordered on hysteria about how “this” was not just some cover up of a third-rate Watergate burglary, “What is clear is that this administration, including the president himself, has intentionally misinformed, read that LIED, to the American people in the aftermath of this tragedy… This is not simply a cover up of a third-rate burglary.”

The ranting continued with other Republicans chiming in.

The problem is that as Republicans have escalated the charges, the facts aren’t backing them up. Suggesting that this “cover up” (not proven, there is not even any factual reason to suggest this other than political dreams of a deeply embarrassed party) is worse than a Watergate demonstrates how far Republicans have gone off the rails in their attempt to get one good smear on this President.

Not only is the intelligence community backing up that their assessment changed as new information came in, but the video of the attacks showed pretty much what the intelligence community has been saying and demonstrated why it was so confusing to determine what happened, given that there appear to be two attacks possibly driven by different motives.

Yes, Eel. You heard right. The Republicans voted against embassy security. This is from Think Progress on October 10.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) said today that he voted to cut funding for U.S. embassy security amid political attacks from Republicans that the Obama administration did not do enough to secure the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya that was attacked last month.

Republicans and their allies have been trying to politicize the attack — which killed four Americans, including the U.S. Ambassador to Libya — suggesting, without evidence, the Obama administration may have ignored intelligence that the attack was imminent, didn’t properly secure the Benghazi compound and is now trying to cover it up.

But hidden beneath the GOP campaign is the fact that House Republicans voted to cut nearly $300 million from the U.S. embassy security budget. When asked if he voted to cut the funds this morning on CNN, Chaffetz said, “Absolutely“:

O’BRIEN: Is it true that you voted to cut the funding for embassy security?

CHAFFETZ: Absolutely. Look, we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have — think about this — 15,000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, private army there for President Obama in Baghdad. And we’re talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces? When you’re in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices how to prioritize this.

It looks like the Republican conspiracy theory that Obama knowingly hid evidence of a terrorist attack in Libya is falling apart. The information that Rice shared the day after the attack, they’re now conceding, is the same information that the CIA had at the time.

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) has admitted that the CIA and intelligence community approved U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice’s talking points before she made her much-derided Sept. 16 appearance on several Sunday news shows to discuss the attacks in Benghazi. King, one of the most outspoken critics of the Obama administration’s response to the attack, came to his conclusion following testimony from former CIA Director David Petraeus.

Republicans have been demanding answers about who changed the talking points Susan Rice used on Benghanzi. As it turns out, the answer is now available — the intelligence community did it, for reasons of national security. And why is that scandalous? It’s not.

McCain is one of the Republicans leading the Benghazi Truther movement. He’s also adamantly against Obama’s nomination of Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense. Only problem is, McCain wanted Hagel to be his Secretary of Defense four years ago when he was running for president. It’s a perfect illustration of the fact that these men don’t care what Obama says. They obstruct on everything.

In his Senate confirmation hearings this week, republican Chuck Hagel received harsh questioning and vocal opposition from fellow republican John McCain, who questioned Hagel’s fitness for the Secretary of Defense position for which he’s been nominated. The move was a startling both because it’s rare for a senator to openly question the merits of a fellow senator, particularly one from his own party, and because McCain’s views toward Hagel have changed significantly since the last time the issue arose. When McCain was running for president in 2000, he was asked who he wanted as his Secretary of Defense. His answer? “Chuck Hagel.”

Man the right wing nuts really came out in force the moment they saw Benghazi.

General Dempsey the Commanding Officer for the entire US military stated there were no aircraft in range to help once the news arrived.

Hillary Clinton did not deny extra security for the ambassador.

There was no Special Forces team told to stand down by the White House. A special forces team was dispatched to Benghazi as quickly as they were ready and arrived as fast as possible. The second team the Right lies about was for the protection of embassy staffers in Tripoli

The Republicans in Congress DENIED Secretary Clinton’s request for more money for security at the embassies. They are the reason for the lack of security that led to the death of 3 Americans. They’re attempting to shift the blame and create a scandal out of nothing. This is one of the most Anti-American displays out of one of the least patriotic congresses in our History since the Civil War. They didn’t even wait until these men were brought back to the US for burial before they started launching attacks based on fat ass lies.

White House emails obtained by ABC News and other organizations last week that purportedly detailed extensive editing of talking points Obama officials used in the aftermath of the Bengahzi, Libya attacks appear to have been misquoted or mischaracterized to emphasize the administration’s focus on those talking points, according to CNN’s Jake Tapper.

ABC News reported that White House Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes wrote an email dated 9/14/12 that said the State Department’s concerns about the details of the attack needed to be addressed in the final talking points. Rhodes was responding to State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, who emailed that she was concerned the talking points could damage “my building’s leadership.”

“We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation,” Rhodes said, according to ABC. “We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.”

According to CNN, the actual email from Rhodes, also dated 9/14/12, reads:
“All –

“Sorry to be late to this discussion. We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation.

“There is a ton of wrong information getting out into the public domain from Congress and people who are not particularly informed. Insofar as we have firmed up assessments that don’t compromise intel or the investigation, we need to have the capability to correct the record, as there are significant policy and messaging ramifications that would flow from a hardened mis-impression.

“We can take this up tomorrow morning at deputies.”

CNN speculates that whoever leaked the White House emails “seemingly invented the notion” that Rhodes, a White House official, wanted State’s concerns specifically addressed. Asked about the ABC report on Friday, White House press secretary Jay Carney said that the only edit the administration made to the talking points was to a “non-substantive correction,” changing the word “consulate” to “diplomatic post.”

4 Americans were killed. An American consulate was overrun by Islamicists who used weapons supplied by this administration in the hopes that they would be used to overthrow Khadaffi. A career diplomat was demoted for telling the truth. The embassy guards ran. The State department prevented any response to protect American citizens during an 8 hour battle. Those responsible for committing this act of war are still at large. Susan Rice did her best to spread disinformation, blaming a poorly dubbed YouTube video as the cause for an angry mob to attack the consulate using military grade weapons. Thhe president’s press secretary has lost all credibility and will probably be the next person in this administration to resign.

The scandal is that 50% of Americans are willing to give Obama a pass on these actions for political reasons – because it was in the middle of a presidential election. The scandal is that Obama thinks appeasement will contain the growing Islamist threat. The scandal is that we are still providing billions in Foreign Aid to the Muslim Brotherhood, who are beheading Coptic Christians and destroying their churches and preparing to obliterate the state of Israel.

I could take your outrage more seriously, EOS, if I’d heard even a hint of concern over even just one of these other recent American embassy attacks. Given that I haven’t, I’m left to believe that you, and your fellow Republicans, have just latched onto this event because it gives you an opportunity to attack the administration and further your own political goals.

The Benghazi attacks (the consulate and the CIA compound) are absolutely not unprecedented even though they’re being treated that way by Republicans who are deliberately ignoring anything that happened prior to Inauguration Day, January 20, 2009.

January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaida terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name “David Foy.” This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what’s considered American soil.)

September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting “Allahu akbar” storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

March 18, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaida-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

September 17, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.

Bush is handed a national security memo entitled “Bin Laden determined to stike inside US” prior to 9/11, does nothing, and 3,000 people die, and yet Bengazi is what Republicans are up in arms about. I think that says it all.

There have been and there will continue to be attacks by Islamic jihadists against American interests worldwide. No one is blaming this president or previous presidents. The difference in Benghazi is that the administration attempted to blame a YouTube video for causing the attack, as if the freedom to publish uncensored videos is justification for killing innocents. This administration attempted to deceive the American people, and the rest of the world, into thinking that something other than extremist muslims were responsible. This administration left American citizens abroad in jeopardy, without sending in troops or seal teams, because they felt it would be politically advantageous. None of the attacks that you listed were attributed to persons other than the suicide bombers or jihadists themselves.

… This administration left American citizens abroad in jeopardy … because they felt it would be politically advantageous.

Does the name Valerie Plame ring a bell, EOS?

This administration is guilty of being amatuers, not of a cover up of Watergate proportions. That the State Department and the Executive Branch are not always on the same page is nothing new.

Time to let this one go, let go of the IRS doing their job in scrutinizing tax exempt requests, but to really pay attention to and be concerned about the shit playing out at that the Justice Department with the AP scandal.

Robert Novak outed Valarie Plame. Scooter lied under oath, was tried and convicted and was dismissed from the Bush administration.

The current administration is guilty of foreign policy failures and subsequently lying to cover it up. It’s not the crime, it’s the cover-up. The president has been accused of releasing the IRS scandal to divert attention from Benghazi. The IRS should not be allowed to use political bias, but if an organization is honest, they have nothing to worry about.

I agree that the Justice Department AP scandal and Eric Holder’s refusal to answer inquiries is potentially more serious than the IRS.

EOS – Ms. Plame was outed at the direction of Dick Cheney. Scooter Libby was pardoned. Mission accomplished while putting hundreds if not thousands of Ms. Plame’s contacts, sources, colleagues, and entire network at great risk. Foreign policy failures are not a crime nor is amateurism. What exactly is the crime – Confusion? Incompetence? Trying to get your shit together thru talking points? Is it not possible that due to low levels of readiness or preparedness, or funding, that they made a mistake and it led tragic results?

Not excusing the administration in any way – they fucked up and should be held accountable. Just don’t think there was a concerted effort to cover up a crime.

As far as the IRS goes, you are very right in that political bias should not occur. This is no different than commies being scrutinized in the 50s, civil rights and Vietnam protest organizations in the 60s, and left wing groups when Bush the dumber was in office. Not right but not a crime.

“Mission accomplished while putting hundreds if not thousands of Ms. Plame’s contacts, sources, colleagues, and entire network at great risk.”

Get real. Ms. Plame was used in an extremely limited basis to obtain some information. She was never undercover and had no contacts or sources or network. She tried unsuccessfully to sue Libby, Cheney, and Bush without any success. Every court up to the Supreme Court threw out her case. Libby misspoke and paid for it, Cheney was never charged with anything, and Bush wasn’t involved. Her 15 minutes of fame are gone in spite of her book.

The fact that Obama and Clinton are spinning this story so fast is reason enough to investigate further. I’m sure there is a lot to this story that has yet to be revealed. Just like the targets of the IRS scrutiny – if they did nothing wrong then they shouldn’t fear further investigation, especially from an administration that prides itself on openness.

… Bush wasn’t involved … Now that is something we can both agree on! Damn man, so quick to dismiss Ms Plame as someone with a very limited importance but when a couple of low level IRS employees go a bit too far it is some kind of colossal cover up going all the way to the president. And you wonder why people piss all over most of your posts! Brownie , er EOS, you’re doing a heck of a job!

I was wrong. I spoke too soon. The IRS collected information from conservatives for which they had no legal authority and then shared some of it with Obama’s campaign, the HRC, and other political groups. This is too big to sweep under the rug. It is a crime and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Benghazi, IRS, and AP. Three strikes and now even the liberals are jumping off the deck.

There really is a stubborn and disgusting direct line from early American racism and accompanying laws and practices and cultural messages to today and the deeper motives of the Tea Party and other antidemocratic groups. Can this country ever get past its reliance on racism? Have to believe yes–and hope and try and stand in awe of those who have gotten us this far.

The Republicans yell for months that no one has been brought to justice and, when someone finally is, they question the timing. This was never about bringing the killers to justice for them. This was, and still is, all about politics.

Word that U.S. Special Operations forces had captured Ahmed Abu Khattala, a suspected leader of the terror attack on the United States diplomatic facilities in Benghazi two years ago, provided good news for those seeking justice for the four Americans killed in the 2012 raid. The reports however, provided very bad news for people who have been playing politics with the terror attack for the last 21 months.

Indeed, the Benghazi revelation and the instantly negative and mocking reaction it received on Fox News and across the right-wing media landscape, provided a telling glimpse into the propaganda campaign conducted by professional conservative talkers who long ago stopped pursuing the facts of the investigation. Instead, they’ve tried to turn “Benghazi” into a brand; a self-sustaining scandal machine reminiscent of the one they built to distract Bill Clinton in the 1990s. The goal of these types of blind pursuits doesn’t revolve around the truth or facts, but around the ability to attack, attack, attack, regardless of good-news revelations.

So instead of toasting Khattala’s capture in Libya as a key breakthrough, the news quickly became reason to add more layers to the impenetrable Benghazi conspiracy. (Either that or to feign indifference.) The claim this time? The timing of the arrest looked fake and phony. Specifically, the Benghazi capture was timed to help Hillary Clinton’s book tour 5,000 miles away in America.

“What a great thing to announce on an interview tonight at Fox News, that the perpetrators have been bought to justice,” said Fox contributor Pete Hegseth. “It’s all too neat and it’s too cute.” Added Fox host Kennedy: “You have a former secretary of state, who is in the middle of a really high profile book tour, I think this is convenient for her to shift the talking points from some of the things she has been discussing.”

Rush Limbaugh mocked the timing as “a beautiful thing.”

This kind of contemptuous, dismissive tone is exactly the opposite of what Obama’s fevered critics had been demanding since September, 2012.

“May 2014, and you still haven’t brought anyone to justice!” Judge Jeanine Pirro complained on her Fox News program just last month. Fox’s Eric Bolling, denouncing the lack of detained Benghazi suspects on The Five, July 31, 2013: “Nice job, President O, no suspects, no interviews, no leads, and no answers.” And Fox contributor Allen West signed on to a letter bemoaning the fact that “not a single terrorist in this well-planned and executed military attack by radical Islamists has been apprehended.”

“Late on a Friday afternoon [11/20/14], when it would get the least attention, a Republican-led committee finally admitted that every single Benghazi conspiracy theory was false. There are ways that the response to the attacks could have been improved, but that’s it. Nobody at the White House interfered. Nobody lied. Nobody prevented the truth from being told.